This argument/strategy relies on the subject avoiding direct invitiations to participate in the investigation. Such a strategy can be used under several pretenses.
1) The subject can claim not to have been aware of the investigation.

Counter - The best counter to this is an invitation or series of invitations issued via email or message that can be traced with a return receipt to show that messages were properly delivered to the subject's email address.

2) The subject can acknowledge the investigation (either through email or on another website) but refuse to take part.

Counter - I would suggest repeated (but not incessant, harassing) invitations, such as politely posting the questions that have been raised on a forum where the subject frequents.

Whether or not the subject ultimately refuses to take part, it is important to show that they were, in fact, aware of and invited to the investigation.

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

The subject or supportor uses this argument to foster the appearance of being under "attack" while trying to help the investigation and provide information. This can include requests to not be banned until he has provided information, or comments indicating that he knows he will be banned for something he has done. Other related accusations could include saying that posters on Bullshido are a single person operating under multiple screen names or that multiple posters are just conspirators, friends, or supportors of the person doing most of the questioning.

Taken to an extreme, the Bullshidoka will intentionally break the rules of the forum in an attempt force a mod to ban them. That will serve to get them out from under the weight of the questions at Bullshido and allow them to whine about being banned before they could provide answers to those questions.

Counter - Point out the argument when they make it. If necessary, point out forum rules about what it takes to earn a ban.

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

This argument hinges on the idea that false claims and other bullshido are ultimately the consumer's responsibility. The seller is just providing a service that the consumer pays for; issues of quality and verifying background claims at up to the buyer. This argument doesn't attempt to provide information about the claims that are being investigated - instead, it seeks to shift the responsibility for those claims from the one who made them to the people who believe them.

Here is a example of this argument as it appeared on this site:

If he is altering the truth for other folks, let the buyer beware.

Counter - Caveat venditor, "Let the seller beware." The seller (in this case, MA instructor) is responsible for his product and for the advertising that he uses to promote it. People should make themselves informed consumers, but advertising with claims that are embellished or completely false is unethical and could be illegal (depending on the details).

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

The stonewall is not so much an argument but a tactic. The subject of an investigation simply ignores any and all requests for information with the hopes that the investigation will become stalled.

A stonewall can cause the parties involved and others following the effort to lose interest and eventually drop the investigation.

Alternatively, the parties involved and others following the effort can also become frustrated and eventually succumb to hostile behavior which can lead to an unintended derailing of the investigation. If this occurs, the interested parties' motives appear to become suspect, causing the entire investigation to appear as a vendetta/smear campaign.

Possible Solutions:

Be patient. Rome wasn't built in a day. Investigations can take years.

Keep your cool. Don't let your frustrations over a stalled investigation get the better of you.

Be persistent. Continue to follow up periodically.

Distance yourself. Be clear about your independence and admonish others following the effort who might be threatening to derail an investigation similarly with their hostile manner.

Do "sanity checks". Ask a disinterested third party to review your efforts/writings to get an objective perspective as to whether you are advancing the investigation as opposed to sidetracking it.

It should be noted any perceived stonewalling may be entirely innocent. Some people are just hard to reach. Additionally, because human nature being what it is, a party may just want to avoid an issue and not deal with a perceived distraction from what they want to do. Nevertheless, the result of this may have the same effect on investigation. It is, however, important to make a distinction between the possible reasons behind why an investigation could become stalled so as to avoid creating an unnecessary distraction to an investigation by prematurely raising the topic of whether the subject is, indeed, stonewalling.

Last edited by Tom Kagan; 3/16/2007 1:59pm at .

Calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

"Your calm and professional manner of response is really draining all the fun out of this. Can you reply more like Dr. Fagbot or something? Call me some names, mention some sand in my vagina or something of the sort. You can't expect me to come up with reasonable arguments man!" -- MaverickZ

"Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way to grasping reality -- it's our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see."
- Terry Goodkind, "Faith of the Fallen"

I would like to say that your list of rebottles and rules are indeed valid methods of argumentation. A valid argument—as I now clumsily understand it-- is one in which a specific structure is followed. An invalid argument is one in which a specific structure is NOT followed. I never followed a specific structure in my arguments as those that you’ve listed on this thread. I made a number of declarative sentences which I honestly thought were true. Some of those sentences as it related to people: (1) fighting, (2) teaching for free (3) producing champions (4) knowing certain people (5) and History; I thought were true. That is why I made so many declarative sentences. You are correct that most of my arguments were not valid according to the rules of logic. (Note*However, the validity of an argument does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion, since a valid argument may have false premises.)

I would like to say to the bullshido investigators that honestly, many martial artists get on these forums that simply do not understand the rules of formal debate. In that regard they get buried in a mountain of desperation that causes them to get more entrenched into their view as a defense mechanism. I believe many well meaning martial artist would prepare better rebuttals as it relates to proof if they understood what you meant by proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_procedure). I guess ignorance of the law is no excuse!

I honestly did not under stand the rules of valid arguments; I was simply conventionally arguing my point and I couldn’t understand why none of you understood. You were simply saying that my arguments were invalid according to the rules of Logic. I still do not know how to engage in a formal debate, but at least I know that “some of you” were not simply being hostile. Thank you for this thread; it informs people on what you are looking for in a formal debate as it relates to proof.

The only thing I don’t agree with on this thread is challenging people over the internet. I personally don’t mind excepting a challenge, but I don’t think the challenger can honestly make a challenge and set their own MMA rules or expect that someone else will abide. In reality, such a practice could be dangerous.

I honestly did not under stand the rules of valid arguments; I was simply conventionally arguing my point and I couldn’t understand why none of you understood. You were simply saying that my arguments were invalid according to the rules of Logic. I still do not know how to engage in a formal debate, but at least I know that “some of you” were not simply being hostile. Thank you for this thread; it informs people on what you are looking for in a formal debate as it relates to proof.

Yes, your post was appropriate. Even though we are necro-ing this thread it is a worthwhile one.

However I fail to understand how you can entirely miss the concept or necessity of proof as a basis for a logical conclusion during the age of CSI. Martial Arts proofs are fairly simple to come by. Certificates, signatures and videos are usually sufficient.

Originally Posted by Mantis

The only thing I don’t agree with on this thread is challenging people over the internet. I personally don’t mind excepting a challenge, but I don’t think the challenger can honestly make a challenge and set their own MMA rules or expect that someone else will abide. In reality, such a practice could be dangerous.

Worried that someone is going to drive across the country and burn down your trailer?

So far my posting on here has resulted in some very interesting sparring sessions that have helped a lot of people out of their illusions. I am glad for that, but you are correct in that some care should be excercised as we do have posters who are truly delusional......

Yes, your post was appropriate. Even though we are necro-ing this thread it is a worthwhile one.

However I fail to understand how you can entirely miss the concept or necessity of proof as a basis for a logical conclusion during the age of CSI. Martial Arts proofs are fairly simple to come by. Certificates, signatures and videos are usually sufficient.......

CSI??? … that’s funny the way you put it…Thanks for the laugh. You are right! Honestly, I did offer some evidence and most things that I said were verifiable or at least partially verifiable. In saying this, I can also say that I did not know how to present my evidence and nor did I understand the concept of “burden of proof.” I am still not totally clear on this, but my superiors have tried to help me understand it.

I got into trouble when I tried to argue that I believed Comba-Tai was an unbroken 6,000 year old tradition, based on its oral tradition. That is very hard to support without providing the evidence for historical time lines. If we go back to CSI; there are four stages of healing, by which a forensics expert can establish a time line for trauma. I think forensic experts verify the time line through the four stages, i.e. their arguments support their claim. Once the claim has been establish, in court, the forensics expert or the state has the “burden of proof.”

Most of old school martial artist, who come to Bullshido to defend our traditions do not understand the concept of “burden of proof.” It is important that we understand this before we try to make informal arguments here. I now understand that Burden of proof is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported.

The first thing to keep in mind—that I have come to understand-- is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

An even more basic principle that Old School martial artist should remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the Martial artist , not with the skeptic. That is where I went wrong. Some people on Bullshido and I probably agree on a great many things, but it was I who asserted the further belief in a 6,000 year old unbroken lineage from Africa was probably true.

We old school martial artist must realize that this extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or engage in a sensible discussion. In some regards—not all—I failed here and did Comba-Tai a great disservice.
The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.
Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn’t have to do anything — and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-argument simply isn’t deemed important.

In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something — and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case).
Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why.

I am sorry that this post is so long. The knowledge helped me; perhaps it will help other well meaning martial artist understand the correct procedure in providing support for their claims that can warrant rational belief.

I had one to add to the false credentials thing. While anything you do military might be classified, it is easy to verify that someone was in the military and in SOCOM. Just ask for a DD 214. It might not say "Lt. X did this and this and this", but it would say that "Lt. X" was in the military, did hold the rank of Lt., and was a part of X Special Operations command.

Be careful with that one, though. Using a DD214 can be misleading, because - and I could possibly be mistaken - doesn't the DD214 only show the servicemember's last posted unit? Also, does it show MOS?

For example, I think a PFC 88M (truck driver) assigned to support an SF unit could show that, if it was his last unit before he ETS'ed, but it might not show that he was also a driver for the Schools Brigade at Benning before that.

Am I right? (Of course, the bullshidoka will have a whole slew of new excuses for why his SFAS and SFQC don't show up on his DD214...)